Printable View
Did the myth that your second and subsequent labours will be faster than your first become true for you? What kind of birth did you have? If it didnt, was there any particular reason why?
I was told by my OB and midwives after a 3 hour first labour that I had better camp at the hospital for baby #2 as it will probably be faster. Just wondering if there is any truth in that or not.
Yes in my case the labours got quicker but I had longer prelabours.
I had no prelabour at all with my first and a 9hr labour.
My 2nd I had a prelabour that lasted for about 12 hours, then a day with nothing, then 20 hours of it before a 2 hour labour.
For my third I had a prelabour that went for a few days off and on and once I realised I was in labour for real it was less than 2 hours. It was 90 mins from when we pulled into the carpark at the hospital and Caleb was born.
So even though my babies arrivals were quicker I had plenty of warning that something was going to happen, I just didn't know when so we were ready to go!
I have heard this to and would be interested what other ladies had to say. My first labour (which had to be induced because of obvious reasons) was 11hours from my first dose of gel. It was fairly quick considering my little angel was high, not engaged and posterior.
This time the ob said to expect about half that time given what happened when I birthed Harry.
x Spring
DD - i was induced with cervidel and from 1st bout of the runs followed by contractions full on until i delivered it was 1 1/2 hours..
DS- i had pre-labour for about 1 week and on-off contractions that i could sleep through on the friday night,.. went to hopsy was 3cm at 4am , had waters broken at 9.30... 2pm 5cm 3.45pm alexander born..
so i labour pretty quick.. considering alexander was 4.27 killos had had a huge boofa head.. i think we did ok! esp without an epi!
Me too...........:
in my case the labours got quicker but I had longer prelabours
Olivia was 7 hours from start to finish, and no pre-labour
Charlie was induced, my waters broke immediately and he was born 2 hours later
Lexie was WEEKS worth of pre-labour and then 40 minutes labour from waters breaking to when I held her.............
My lovely OB suggested that if we were to have #4 that we had best camp out at the hospital from 38 weeks or go the home-birth, LOL! (Sadly no more for us............)
It is true, normally. Second babies are often the ones that are in a rush - when you see those stories of babies born on the doorstep, in the laundry or on the way to hospital it's usually that second baby - toddler saves the day by getting the phone for mummy!
Ok well looks like I'll be in for a less than 3 hour labour this time round. I think after my 3 hour first labour I couldnt handle a 20hr one lol
It was for me to. DD was 9hours and DS was 3hours with a 6min delivery. Im abit concerned about all this actually as DH is 1hr 20 from home and my mother is a good half hour away. Never mind, it will all work out im sure.
My second was so much easier to i thought. Both labour and delivery.
I think in most cases this is true. I had a first labour of just over 2 hours and a second of a little more than 1 hour. My 3rd was a c section, but my 4th was 10 hours !! Talk about an about face.
Hoping no. 5 get's back to a decent timing.